RICHARD G. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Richard G. Davis appealed the revocation of his probation and resulting five-year prison sentences. The court reversed and vacated the probation order and revocation on the receiving stolen property charge because the information failed to allege the stolen property's value was $100 or more, depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction over that felony charge.
The court held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the information's failure to allege that the stolen property was worth $100 or more meant Davis was charged with only a misdemeanor, not a felony. Therefore, the probation order and subsequent revocation order were void and were vacated.
[1] A circuit court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to place a defendant on probation for receiving stolen property if the charging information fails to allege that the val…
[2] Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Noting that lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, we held that the failure of the information to allege that the stolen property was worth $100 or more only alleged a misdemeanor and, therefore, did not give the circuit court jurisdiction to place appellant on probation.”
Establishes the core holding that failure to allege the $100 minimum value deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the felony receiving stolen property charge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was charged with grand larceny and receiving stolen property in two separate informations. The receiving stolen property information alleged Dav…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Void Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard G. Davis appeals from an order revoking his probation and his subsequent five year prison sentences. Appellant was originally charged in two informations with grand larceny and receiving stolen property. The information on the latter charge stated that appellant feloniously received a 1972 Tahaiti boat and motor, knowing that the property had been stolen. Appellant pled guilty to both charges and was placed on five years probation on each, the periods to run concurrently. He was later charged with three violations and his probation was revoked. The trial judge sentenced appellant to two five year concurrent prison terms.
Appellant now contends that the trial court originally lacked subject matter jurisdiction to place him on probation for receiving stolen property. He argues that because the information failed to allege that the value of the boat was worth $100 or more, he was never charged with a felony. Thus, the order placing appellant on probation and the order revoking his probation were void. We agree and reverse.
We were presented with the identical issue in Waters v. State, 354 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Noting that lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, we held that the failure of the information to allege that the stolen property was worth $100 or more only alleged a misdemeanor and, therefore, did not give the circuit court jurisdiction to place appellant on probation. Thus, the subsequent order modifying his probation was a nullity and was vacated. Moreover, as in the instant case, “there was no recitation of value in the factual basis outlined before the court, nor was there any other evidence before the court to supply the omitted allegation on this issue.” 354 So. 2d at 1278. See Page v. State, 376 So. 2d 901, (Fla.1979); Shanklin v. State, 369 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Accordingly, the order placing appellant on probation for receiving stolen property, the order revoking his probation on that charge, and the sentence entered thereon are vacated and the case is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Since no error is alleged with respect to the information for grand larceny, the revocation of probation and subsequent sentence on that charge is affirmed.
GRIMES, C. J., and BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shanklin v. State, 369 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Page v. State, 376 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Waters v. State, 354 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)